Sugarman v. Liles
| Decision Date | 31 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 80, Sept. Term, 2017,80, Sept. Term, 2017 |
| Citation | 460 Md. 396,190 A.3d 344 |
| Parties | Stanley SUGARMAN, et al. v. Chauncey LILES, Jr. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Michele R. Kendus (Kendus Law LLC, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for petitioners
Argued by Bruce H. Powell (The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent
Argued Before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.
This case presents yet another opportunity for clarification of when epidemiological studies relied upon by an expert provide a sufficient factual basis for the expert's testimony. Specifically, we shall consider whether an expert's opinion on causation, relying on epidemiological studies, suffers from the same "analytical gap" identified in Rochkind v. Stevenson , 454 Md. 277, 164 A.3d 254 (2017). We shall also assess whether an expert may offer an opinion on specific causation when relying on epidemiological data coupled with an individualized analysis of the plaintiff and his claimed injuries. Finally, we consider the sufficiency of proof required for a plaintiff to demonstrate a loss of earning capacity.
Respondent, Chauncey Liles, Jr. sued Ivy Realty, Inc. and Stanley Sugarman (collectively "Sugarman") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Liles alleged injury and damages caused by lead paint exposure at a residential property (the "Residence") owned by Sugarman. At trial, the parties stipulated that, due to Sugarman's negligence, Liles was exposed to deteriorating lead paint at the Residence. The parties further stipulated that the exposure caused Liles's elevated blood lead levels ("BLL"). The only remaining questions for the jury were whether the lead exposure caused Liles any injury, and if so, what damages he incurred.
Liles was born in 1998. At the age of 2, Liles's BLL measured 11 mcg/dL. At the age of 3, his BLL was 10 mcg/dL. When he entered the fourth grade, Liles began to have educational difficulties. At the same time, Liles was experiencing grief and anxiety from the death of several family members. His educational records reflect that in fifth grade, as a result of his educational difficulties, his teachers provided additional accommodations, including one-on-one support, individualized help on his math skills and test taking practice, additional response time in class, additional time to complete assignments, and repetition of directions. Through middle school, Liles earned grades in the 90s, 80s, and mid-to-high 70s.
After middle school, Liles attended Baltimore City College ("City College"), a selective high school located in Baltimore. He graduated in May 2016. In 2012, Liles broke the thumb on his dominant hand. In 2012 and 2013, his academic performance faltered. Initially, in a deposition, Liles attributed this dip in his grades to not being able to write with an injured hand. At trial though, he testified that this was just an excuse meant to cover for his faltering performance and difficulties paying attention. In 9th grade, his GPA was 2.38. In 10th grade, he had a GPA of 1.09. His GPA increased in 11th and 12th grade, when he earned GPAs of 2.57 and 3.36 respectively. He graduated 194th out of 301 students in his class.
Liles described his grades at City College as "terrible." He attributed his performance to his inability to focus and claimed that he is easily distracted, has difficulty sitting still, and stated that he "just can't grasp things as fast as other people do." He claimed that these issues started when he was young and that "as the work got harder, [he] couldn't get it." Despite these difficulties in the classroom, Liles tested at or above grade level on the Maryland School Assessment and passed his High School Assessment without any additional support. Liles was accepted at West Virginia University and Bowie State University, both of which are four-year schools. At trial, Liles testified that he intended to pursue a bachelor's degree from Bowie State.
Liles's mother graduated from high school and obtained some college education, but has no college degree. His father also graduated from high school but did not attend college and works as a truck driver.
At trial, Liles called four expert witnesses: (1) Robert Kraft, Ph.D.; (2) Jacalyn Blackwell-White, MD; (3) Mark Lieberman; and (4) Michael Conte, Ph.D. We shall examine the testimony of each in turn.
Liles offered Dr. Robert Kraft as an expert in the field of psychology and neuropsychology. Dr. Kraft testified that he conducted a neuropsychological examination of Liles, which consisted of an interview as well as several tests administered to assess various aspects of intelligence including attention, memory, learning, and language. Specifically, Dr. Kraft administered an IQ test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale ("WAIS–IV"). Dr. Kraft testified that Liles had a full-scale IQ of 94, which placed him in the 34th percentile and in the normal range. Dr. Kraft also explained that an average range IQ does not necessitate a conclusion that there was no evidence of brain impairment.
In addition to this overall score, the IQ test revealed several sub-scores, which measured various aspects of intelligence. Dr. Kraft found a "statistically significant" discrepancy between some of Liles's sub-scores, which indicated that Liles had some form of brain impairment. Liles received a sub-score of 86 on two indexes Dr. Kraft identified as most sensitive to attention and concentration.
Notably, according to Dr. Kraft, Liles scored 86 in both: (1) auditory encoding of information in the working memory; and (2) information processing speed. Dr. Kraft testified that these are both factors of attention. Dr. Kraft described auditory encoding in the following manner: "Any time an individual gives you a piece of information that you are expected to use in some way, you are encoding that information until you've completed the task, then you can forget about the information." Regarding information processing speed, Dr. Kraft said:
Processing speed is your ability to independently focus and complete a task in a self-direct manner. So any time a student sits down to study, an adult, anyone sits down to read a book, any time a person sits down to complete a writing task—that requires information processing speed.
When Dr. Kraft tested Liles's information processing speed a second time, Liles received a scale score of 76, which placed him in the 5th percentile. Liles also performed in the "borderline" range on a test related to "simple and complex visual motor tracking." This, Dr. Kraft testified, was "consistent with his processing speed difficulty and difficulty shifting attention." Dr. Kraft opined that Liles's lower scores on these tests of attention were statistically significant and attributable to brain impairment.
The lower scores on auditory encoding and information processing speed were the only impairments Dr. Kraft identified. On cross-examination, when asked about how these attention impairments related to Liles's academic performance, Dr. Kraft said, He further stated, that "[m]y opinion ... is that he may not show any impairments in his school performance at all based on these deficits, if he's able to adapt and accommodate in some way for them."
Dr. Blackwell-White was accepted as an expert in the fields of pediatrics and childhood lead poisoning
. She testified that lead is a neurotoxin that "causes damage to the central nervous system." She explained that lead blocks the transmission of neurotransmitters to the brain, which impedes "learning pathways." Lead exposure during the prenatal stage through at least age six or seven can cause damage to the brain because it disrupts the learning pathways during critical developmental periods. Dr. Blackwell-White testified that this means that "attention is going to be affected." She also explained that the Center for Disease Control "issue[s] standards and protocols for diagnosis and treatment of children who have elevated blood lead levels ..." and has set the current reference level at 5 mcg/dL. The reference level was once higher, but later lowered due to medical studies showing that BLLs under 10 mcg/dL are harmful to children.
Dr. Blackwell-White did not examine Liles, but instead reviewed his medical records, Dr. Kraft's report, and other associated records. She opined that, "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty," Liles Liles "incurred brain impairment as a result of his early lead toxicity...." This impairment included, but was not limited to, a loss of cognitive function. Dr. Blackwell-White also opined that Liles lost 4 IQ points "as a result of early lead toxicity."
Dr. Blackwell-White relied extensively on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Science Assessment for Lead ("EPA-ISA").1 She explained that the EPA-ISA found causal relationships between lead exposure and attention problems in children, as well as issues with hyperactivity and impulse control. Dr. Blackwell-White relied on other studies, chiefly one by Dr. Bruce Lanphear, ("Lanphear Study"),2 showing a causal relationship between lead exposure in childhood and the loss of IQ points. We shall examine the conclusions of both the EPA-ISA and the Lanphear Study in more detail infra . Dr. Blackwell-White offered her opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that, Liles "suffered brain damage as a result of his early lead exposure." She also testified that the cognitive deficits
Dr. Kraft described were caused by Liles's early lead exposure. She explained that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Matthews
...to bridge the gap between his or her opinion and the empirical foundation on which the opinion was derived." Sugarman v. Liles, 460 Md. 396, 425, 190 A.3d 344, 361 (2018) (quoting Savage, 455 Md. at 163, 166 A.3d at 183 ). In order "[t]o bridge the analytical gap, an expert's testimony must......
-
Rochkind v. Stevenson
...of [the expert's] testimony under Frye-Reed.Savage, 455 Md. at 175 n.1 (Adkins, J., concurring) (citation omitted). Most recently, in Sugarman v. Liles, another opinion authored by Judge Adkins, we revisited the same EPA-ISA papers at issue in Stevenson I and the present case. 460 Md. 396 (......
-
Rochkind v. Stevenson
...testimony under Frye - Reed . Savage , 455 Md. at 175 n.1, 166 A.3d 183 (Adkins, J., concurring) (citation omitted).Most recently, in Sugarman v. Liles , another opinion authored by Judge Adkins, we revisited the same EPA-ISA papers at issue in Stevenson I and the present case. 460 Md. 396,......
-
Blair v. Austin
..."We review the trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for judgment in a civil case without deference." Sugarman v. Liles , 460 Md. 396, 413, 190 A.3d 344, 353 (2018). In our review, we "conduct the same analysis that a trial court should make when considering the motion for judgme......